tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 11, 2015 5:00pm-6:01pm PST
general. between the true conservative and the neo con. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> the word is elegant. it was an elegant evening. >> it was a night of elegance and benevolence. >> thank you, donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate. that's really nice of you. i really appreciate that. >> a day after the fourth republican debate, how donald trump is defending his latest immigration bombshell. >> we're going to have a deportation force. and you're going to do it humanely. then, senator chris murphy on what we learned about republican foreign policy. >> so we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? >> senator sherrod brown, on the gop trouble with the obama economy. and why some of the night's biggest applause lines just don't add up. >> welders make more money than philosophers. all that and shocking new video showing a man handcuffs,
tased, and dying in police custody. when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. last night, the republican candidates got the debate they said they wanted, but the moderators largely declining to press the candidates on often dubious claims, and the candidates regularly ignoring the moderator's questions in favor of their trump speech. the candidates all said they loved it. >> i thought it was excellent. it was not about the moderators. it was about the candidates. >> i thought the moderators asked really good questions. >> we had a great night last night. we enjoyed being a part of that debate. >> donald trump always gave the debate a good review. he deployed what clearly appeared to be the perfect word to describe it. >> i thought the three
moderators did a fantastic job. not only a really good job, it was elegant. it was an elegant debate. somebody just asked me how was it, it was really elegant. they didden elegant job. i thought it was a very elegant evening. i thought the moderators were elegant and i thought it was a great night. actually, the word is elegant. it was an elegant evening. i thought the anchors, they really were -- the moderators were really elegant -- all three -- in the way they presented themselves, in the way they presented the questions. i thought it was a very elegant evening. >> it was very fair and elegant. >> i just thought this was a very elegant debate. >> this is the fourth gop presidential debate so far and it drew 13.5 million viewers, record for fox business network, though a lower viewership than any of the previous debates, including with its cnbc rival. jeb bush, who has been trying to change donor class perceptions
around his floundering candidacy gave a solid, but not breakout performance last night. today he was asked how he might improve. >> i'll do better. >> i thought it was fine. i did well. we talked about issues that are important to people. we need to start thinking about who's the person who can beat hillary clinton, rather than trying to get into small differences between each campaign. >> the candidates didn't fight with moderators, they did at times fight with each other. and quite a few exchanges that include very real substance. after seeing bsh's response that trump asserted wrongly that vladimir putin is primarily targeting isis in syria. >> if putin wants to go ahead and knock the hell out of isis, i'm all for it 100%. and i can't understand how anybody would be against it. they blew up -- hold it. wait a minute. they blew up a russian airplane. he cannot be in love with these people. he's going in and we can go in and everybody should go in. >> donald is wrong on this.
he is absolutely wrong on this. the idea that it's a good idea for putin to be in syria, let isis take out assad and putin will take out isis. that's like a board game. that's like playing monopoly or something. that's not how the real world works. >> you should note, the bomb that trump mentioned has not been definitive linked to isis, and a bomb has not been definitively established at all. jeb bush is lying, that's not how the real world looks. a sober recognition of the complexities of that region and a comment that could also apply to ben carson's quote fairly easy strategy to defeat isis. >> we're talking about global jihadists and their desire is to destroy us and destroy our way of life. so we have to be saying, how do we look like losers, because that's the way they're able to gather a lot of influence. and i think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. and you look for the easiest place to do that.
it would be in iraq. and if outside of anbar in iraq, there's a big energy field. take that from them. take all of that land from them. we could do that, i believe, fairly easily, i've learned from talking to several generals. and then you move on from there. >> joining me now, senator chris murphy, democrat of connecticut. senator, you're tweeting along with the debate last night. getting you a little riled up. what was your general reaction to the foreign policy section of that debate? >> i had the misfortune for tuning in for about a half hour of the debate as they were discussing their views on foreign policy. and it's just really disturbing, how there is a total lack of understanding about the subtleties and complexities of foreign policy in general and the middle east, specifically. you heard ben carson suggest that we could just roll through isis in iraq in a matter of days or weeks. trump says that we're on the verge of some grand partnership and alliance with the russians against isil. and then marco rubio doesn't
lend any better when he suggests that it's just really a couple billion dollars more of military buildup, and you'll scare away islamic extremism. there's just no understanding, but the combination of military strength and political progress and reconciliation in the region, that you have to have, to take on isis. now, i get that you campaign in poetry and you govern in prose, but there's just absolutely no sense that this field has learned anything from the last 15 years and the disaster of thinking in black and white terms about the middle east. >> you know, it's not just a sort of ideological disposition. what strikes me on a lot of issues, particularly the passages on foreign policy was just a feeling that these are not people who had devoted a tremendous amount of sustained attention to reading their briefing books, talking to people, even talking to their own policy people. and i'm curious what you think. you're somebody who spends a lot of time thinking on this. you're on a committee who deals with these issues.
did it seem thin to you? well, i think it's extraordinary, that these are the sort of top-tier candidates for the presidency of the united states. and there are some really simple mistakes that they continue to make. for instance, trump's mistake last night, that putin is bombing isil. and in fact, 90% of russia's air strikes are attacking the very people that the united states are trying to support. the syrian opposition, inside that country. and so, it does strike me as incredibly irresponsible, how little time this field is spending, trying to understand a really complicated part of the world. and you know, the problem is, is that it appears that they're just going to outsource foreign policy to the folks in the republican party, who have been running that book of business for the last 20 years. and guess who that is? that's people like paul wolfowitz and dick cheney, the folks that got us into this mess in iraq in the first place. and that's maybe the most dangerous suggestion coming out of these debates, is that these
guys just aren't going to be very involved in foreign policy. they're going to let the interventionalist neo conservatives take back over the white house, which is an invitation to disaster. >> you know, there's a moment, a lot of people calling for no-fly zone in syria. i want to play a moment in which rand paul rose in dissent, chi thought was interesting. >> you're asking for a no-fly zone in an area in which russia already flies. russia flies in that zone at the invitation of iraq. realize that means you are saying, we are going to shoot down russian planes. if you are ready for that, be ready to send your sons and daughters to another war in iraq. >> what did you think of that moment? i thought it was a rare moment of clarity. >> so rand paul's right about this. this is, you know, the kind of the new sexy issue in syria policy, is a no-fly zone. but it is much more complicated in that you have complicated russian-built air defense
systems that can potentially shoot down american planes. you are going to be putting yourself in conflict, perhaps, with the russians themselves. and ultimately, it doesn't do you a lot of good, because you need ground stability as well. you actually need to have some protection on the ground to stop those forces from moving in under the airplanes. so, you know, i think senator paul is right that this isn't as simple as it ultimately sounds. now, i think that paul comes across as defeatist. he really has no answers for how you defeat extremism in the region. and a lot of us would argue that there needs to be much more engagement on the political side on the ground to try to convince the shia regimes to be inclusive of sunni populations that are being pushed towards extremism today. but he's certainly right that there's no easy military answers in that region right now. >> all right. senator chris murphy, thanks for your time. >> thanks. one of the big battle lines drawn last night, perhaps the biggest, was on immigration, where you have donald trump on the one hand calling for deporting 11 million people and
jeb bush and john kasich on the other. >> for the 11 million people -- come on, folks. we all know you can't pick them up and ship them back across the border. it's a silly argument. even having this conversation sends a powerful signal, they're doing high fives in the clinton campaign right now when they hear this. >> it was immediately after those bush remarks, clinton press secretary brian fallon tweeted, we actually are doing high fives right now. hillary clinton tweeted, the idea of tracking down millions of people and deporting them was absurd. and trump talked about a previous program undertaken by a previous republican president. >> dwight eisenhower, people liked him. i like ike, right? the expression, i like ike, moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country. moved them just beyond the border. they came back. moved them again beyond the border. they came back.
didn't like it. moved them way south. they never came back. >> so donald trump officially endorsing eisenhower's 1954 deportation program. but not by name, perhaps because the program was called operation wetback, named after a disparaging is term for mexicans arrived by the rio grande. in the 1950s, "the washington post" reported hundreds of thousands mexicans were packed on buses, trucks, and boats and dumped into obscure areas of mexico, with little in the way of possessions, and in many occasions, without resources to survive. after one roundup, 88 people died from heatstroke. boats packed with migrants were compared to a 18th century slave ships. trump was stressed for specifics today, and he would put together a deportation force, but insisted it would be a humane deportation force. >> tell me the how. are you going to have a massive
deportation force? >> you're going to have a deportation force. >> how are they going to pay for this? will they be ripped from their homes? >> they're going back from where they came. that's the way it's supposed to be. >> very humanely done. >> how? >> it's a whole management thing. it's called good management. it's good management practices. >> it's 11 million -- >> but katy, it will be very, very humanely done. >> joining me now, julian castro. is that plausible? a humanely done mass deportation of 11 million people? >> well, of course it's not. and, you know, just speaking for myself. i was quite surprised to hear those words out of donald trump's mouth. i guess i shouldn't have been. maybe we shouldn't have been at all, any of us, because he's been talking for the last few months deporting between 11 million and 12 million people.
but to hear him talk about a deportation force, and refer to essentially "operation wetback" from the eisenhower administration should remind folk who is care about being reasonable on the issue of immigration just how impractical, how inhumane and really how dangerous his ideas are. >> you know, it's been striking when you trace the center of debate among republicans about immigration, the debate used to be a path towards citizenship and comprehensive immigration reform, and there were a variety of senators who voted for a bill like that, flincluding marco rubio, and the others who have said, no, just increase border enforcement. that debate has now moved to mass deportation or don't mass deport. it's really quite a move. >> it is. and it's going to be unfortunate in the general election for the republican party, because, as you know, they lost the 2012 election in part because mitt
romney went out there and said he supported self-deportation. the republican party did an autopsy of the 2012 election and the number one thing they said was that we need to get right about folk who is care about that immigration issue. and we need to get away from espousing policies like self-deportation. now comes donald trump and other folks like marco rubio, who are just standing there, hearing this, and not standing up for something different, and they're basically going beyond what mitt romney said. so they're going in the wrong direction. and i'm very proud of what the president has done on immigration, his executive action. i'm also proud that secretary clinton has said that she will keep that in place. that she'll try to work with the congress for comprehensive immigration reform. but that she's willing to keep the executive action in place. that is reasonable. and i think that's a better way to approach it and i'm confident that folks are listening out
there. and it's going to make a difference in the general election next year. >> i should note, the latest executive action has been halted by federal judges in texas. that will probably work its way up to the supreme court at some point. so that is on hold as of now. i wanted to ask you about senator ted cruz last night. he did governor perry one better. governor perry famously said he would get rid of three agencies, could name two of three. ted cruz said he would get rid of five, named four of five, repeated one. one of those agencies is the agency you head up, hud. today is obviously veterans day. my understanding is hud has been doing some very targeted work among veterans and veterans homelessness. what would taking away hud tomorrow do to some of the programs you're working on for veterans? >> you know, five years ago, the president came out with something called opening doors, which is the first blueprint to not just reduce homelessness, but actually end it. so today, because of the work of
hud, the v.a. and the state of virginia, i got to stand with general mcauliffe in richmond and announce that virginia has become the first state to effectively end veteran homelessness. we've seen new orleans who reached their end to veteran homelessness. and in the last five years, in part because of the strong work that hud has been doing, we've seen a 36% reduction in veteran homelessness. so whether you're talking about cities or small towns or tribal communities, hud is the department that is doing important and impactful work, and especially for folks like our veterans who have served honorably and who deserve to have a home in the country that they defended. but, you know, i don't know whether to take ted cruz seriously, because he did mention the commerce department twice. and i think at that point, when he realized that he just looked like he was fishing for some department, so i think i'm going to have to double check with him to see if he really meant hud. >> on the bright side, our mentioned twice. so -- >> true. >> maybe you're not quite a
priority. secretary julian castro, thank you very much. still to come, republican candidates had a chance to show off their economic policy chops last night. how did they do? senator sherrod brown will be here to weigh in. and later we'll play the most memorable moments from last night's dbebate. and shocking foot amg, a man dies in police custody after reportedly being tased multiple times.
♪ some neighbors are energy saving superstars. how do you become a superstar? with pg&e's free online home energy checkup. in just under 5 minutes you can see how you use energy and get quick and easy tips on how to keep your monthly bill down and your energy savings up. don't let your neighbor enjoy all the savings. take the free home energy checkup. honey, we need a new refrigerator. visit pge.com/checkup and get started today.
i realize that with less than 1% of americans serving in uniform, the other 99% of folks don't always appreciate the incredible skills and assets that our veterans can offer. on this veterans day, this is what i want every american to know. our veterans are some of the most talented, driven, capable people on earth. >> that was president obama marking veterans day and encouraging employers to hire veterans. the president gave those remarks
at arlington national cemetery, where he laid the ceremonial wreath at the tomb of the unknowns, a tradition also done on memorial day. but in addition to acknowledging those who serve, this is a celebratory day, it dates back to 1918, where on november 11th, 11:00 a.m., the fighting ended in the brutal bloody war. it was originally changed to armistice day, but was changed to honor veterans in all days. it is still observed on november 11th, but back then, when the original armistice came, every american had some sort of experience of what years of war really meant. today it is very easy for many to see this, our longest period of war, as something someone else is doing. how you doing? hey! how are you? where are we watching the game? you'll see. i think my boys have a shot this year. yeah, especially with this new offense we're running... i mean, our running back is a beast. once he hits the hole
and breaks through the secondary, oh he's gone. and our linebackers and dbs dish out punishment, and never quit. ♪ you didn't expect this did you? no i didn't. the nissan altima. there's a fun side to every drive. nissan. innovation that excites. just serve classy snacks and bew a gracious host,iday party. no matter who shows up. [cricket sound] richard. didn't think you were going to make it. hey sorry about last weekend, i don't know what got into me. well forgive and forget... kind of. i don't think so! do you like nuts?
last night's republican debate hosted by fox business channel and "the wall street journal" was billed as a chance for republican candidates to speak with substance and specifics about business and the economy. but what we may have gotten instead is a signal that republican candidates haven't really come up with a compelling set of answers to some basic questions about the trajectory of the economy under barack obama. take for instance this question from moderator gerard baker to carly fiorina. >> under seven years of president obama, the u.s. has added an average of 107 jobs a month. under president clinton, the economy added about 240,000 jobs a month. under george w. bush, it was only 13,000 a month. if you win the nomination, you'll probably be facing a democrat named clinton. how are you going to respond to the claim that democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than republicans? >> yes, problems have gotten much worse under democrats.
but the truth is, this government has been growing bigger and bigger, more corrupt, less effective, crushing the engine of economic growth for a very long time. this isn't about just replacing a democrat with a republican now. it's about actually challenging the status quo of big government. >> you catch that there? in her answer, fiorina did not address why job growth has been stronger under democratic presidents. completely dodging, yes, things have gotten much worse under democrats, which is completely the opposite of the promiemise the question. when senator rubio would assure americans their jobs would not be replaced by machines, he also pivoted, saying america is in an economic downturn. >> how do you reassure american workers that their jobs are not being steadily -- >> you know, that's an excellent question. because what we are going through in this country is not simply an economic downturn, we are living through a massive economic transformation. this economy is nothing what it looks like 5 years ago, not to
mention 15 or 20 years ago. >> what we're going through is an economic downturn. the problem is we're not going through an economic downturn, as michael grimwald points out, we've had 68 consecutive months of private sector employment growth. seven years after we were driven into a really, really tough recession, under a republican president, which the economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month, a democratic president is responsible for bringing us back from the precipice of fullout disaster. joining me now, sherrod brown, democrat from ohio. >> i think that really wasn't the answer, the question for carly fiorina. i think you guys substituted that. >> i was watching it last night, and i just thought, i really appreciate fox asking the question. basically they said, 22 million private sector jobs, clinton years, essentially zero private sector jobs bush years. and now, 60 plus months since the auto rescue, since the recovery act of economic growth and job growth in the obama years. and i was hoping the fox
reporter, a good question would follow up and say, you didn't answer the question, how do you explain this? >> it strikes me, look, the most basic argument in any presidential election tends to be about the economy and there's a whole bunch of data about how the economy is doing determines the outcome. someone will have to get out the republican party and say, here is the argument for why this economic stewardship has been bad. and it can't just be talking points about regulation taxuation. >> and you looked at what happened during the clinton years. there was -- they had that kind of economic growth, because we grew the economy from the middle out. the bush years, where there was no economic growth, where there was little economic growth, and no real job growth, it was two major tax cuts, trickle-down economics. the wealthy got big tax cuts. nobody else got very much. no real economic growth. the obama years, again, investing in the middle, growing the economy from the middle out. the auto rescue, which mattered
hugely to my state, but mattered to the whole country, and the recovery act, and we have seen since then, every single month, economic growth and job growth. this is about as good a model, as good a laboratory as you can see, where you built the economy from the middle up, you had job growth, both eight year and six-year periods. when you had trickle down economics, you had no job growth. >> on the other side of that, a similar question was asked in the undercard debate. and i thought rick santorum had the best answer. he said, just go to listen to the democratic primary debate for what's wrong with the obama economy. and it is true much of that debate does focus on huge gaps in the economy. >> certainly, certainly. and part of that is because we haven't invested in an infrastructure. we know that grows jobs. we've seen this austerity practice by republicans should keep cutting spending on everything from nih to infrastructure. you don't really invest in the economy the way you should. and the other thing is the minimum wage has been -- is -- hasn't been raised for seven years. the minimum wage today is one
third less buying power than id hat 30 years ago. we know that a higher minimum wage, by and large, creates, generates economic growth and wage growth and ultimately, the people that get a $2 or $3 an hour job aren't investing in a swiss bank account. they're investing and growing the economy that way. harry truman essentially doubled the minimum wage in the late '40s or late '50s. eisenhower then increased it another significant amount. and we saw the unemployment rate at about 3 plus percent in those days. so job growth came with these minimum wage increases. we know it will happen again. >> there was a long exchange last night about the banks, and about dodd/frank. and a lot of folks trying to basically make an argument, two things. one saying, i would not -- ted cruz said i will not bail out the banks. hillary clinton said a similar thing. should voters believe a politician who looks them in the eyes during a campaign says,
yeah, the too big to fail bank along the premise, i would not bail them out. >> first of all, they should ask these candidates what they really mean when they say -- none of them really seem to realize that every policy holder, i mean, every saver in the bank, if you have $100,000 in the bank, the fdic insures that money. i was surprised that governor bush who was supposed to have a policy nerd and great sophistication really couldn't answer that question nor could the others. that people are guaranteed their accounts up to $250,000. >> that is what the fdic does. >> and it used to be $100,000 until dodd/frank, another good thing that dodd/frank did that will help lower income people and middle upper income people in that situation. i was stunned by the lack of sophistication on all of those questions on banking. these are republican candidates, they're senators, they're governors, they're ceos, they're
brain surgeons and i would think they would know a little bit more about bank welcome what we did to save this economy and what we might have to do in the future. and capital standards is part of the answer, but that's sort of like governor bush just had, somebody said, say capital standards, and he said it like five times, but i'm not sure he even knew what he meant. but he had nothing else to talk about how you deal with too big to fail, too big to regulate, too big to manage. all the issues we've mostly fixed, but not entirely fixed in our financial services. >> there were a lot of moments last night where i felt like i was catching the student in class who had not even read the cliff notes, maybe read a few pages. >> and this may sound a bit partisan, but contrast it with the democratic debate. the democrats, first of all, they have respect for the voter and each other in the democratic debates, where they talked substantiative policy issues with much more depth than this sort of prattle in the republican debates.
it was almost a little embarrassing for some of them, actually. coming up, shocking footage that came first by msnbc, a man dies in police custody after being tased multiple times and driven away from the hospital. ari melber is here to talk about that case, ahead. ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪ ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪ ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪ so wi got a job!ews? i'll be programming at ge. oh i got a job too, at zazzies. (friends gasp) the app where you put fruit hats on animals? i love that! guys, i'll be writing code that helps machines communicate. (interrupting) i just zazzied you. (phone vibrates) look at it! (friends giggle)
i can do dogs, hamsters, guinea pigs... you name it. i'm going to transform the way the world works. (proudly) i programmed that hat. and i can do casaba melons. i'll be helping turbines power cities. i put a turbine on a cat. (friends ooh and ahh) i can make hospitals run more efficiently... this isn't a competition! if yand you're talking toevere rheumyour rheumatologiste me, about a biologic... this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further damage. this is humira giving me new perspective.
doctors have been prescribing humira for ten years. humira works for many adults. it targets and helps to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com this is humira at work
intense national media attention, the campus has begun to appear to quiet down. yesterday, anonymous threats were posted on a social media called yik yak. one of them read, we're waiting for you in the parking lot. we will kill you. understandably, many students, particularly students of color, did not feel safe. some staying away from campus. jonathan butler, the student whose hunger strike was one of the touchstones of the protest, tweeted, death threats are being made to black students and no administrators are responding effectively. the administration applied, there are no credible threats to campus. mupd and campus officials are on the scene. today, an arrest was made. 19-year-old hunter park was charged with making a terroristic threat. park is a student at the missouri university of science and technology, about 94 miles away from the campus in columbia. his arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. a student at northwest missouri state university, connor stottlemeyer was also arrested. tonight, protesters at the main
missouri campus were gathering to discuss their next steps. how you doing? hey! how are you? where are we watching the game? you'll see. i think my boys have a shot this year. yeah, especially with this new offense we're running... i mean, our running back is a beast. once he hits the hole and breaks through the secondary, oh he's gone. and our linebackers and dbs dish out punishment, and never quit. ♪ you didn't expect this did you? no i didn't. the nissan altima. there's a fun side to every drive. nissan.
innovation that excites. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me. with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. it should be used along with diet and exercise. trulicity is not recommended as the first medicine to treat diabetes and should not be used by people with severe stomach or intestinal problems, or people with type i diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. trulicity is not insulin and has not been studied with long-acting insulin.
do not take trulicity if you or anyone in your family has had medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2 or if you are allergic to trulicity or its ingredients. stop using trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of an allergic reaction, such as itching, rash, or difficulty breathing; if you have signs of pancreatitis such as severe stomach pain that will not go away and may move to your back, with or without vomiting; or if you have symptoms of thyroid cancer, which may include a lump or swelling in your neck, hoarseness, trouble swallowing, or shortness of breath. medicines like trulicity may cause stomach problems, which could be severe. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and any medicines you take. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney failure. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. and click to activate your within.
msnbc has obtained disturbing video of a 2013 incident in which an unarmed man in police custody was repeatedly tased, umly dying in police custody. on may 4th, 2013, approximately 4:28 a.m., three police officers in virginia arrived at a super8 motel, responding to a disturbance call. 46-year-old linwood ray lambert was, they say, hallucinating and his hotel room trashed. police thought lambert needed medical care. he was handcuffed, but he was not under arrest, which police explained to him on the way. upon arriving at the hospital, lambert kicked out the window of the police car. lambert ran towards the hospital entrance still in handcuffs, as poli you saw there. after lambert fell on the ground, police continued to taze
hi him. i'm going to light you up again. >> okay. >> police then shackled lambert's leg and lambert told police officers he had done cocaine. but at this point, instead of taking lambert into the emergency room of the hospital, the threshold of the door that they were at, they placed him under arrest and instead took him back to the car. officers tased him again after telling him to sit up. bear in mind, lambert's hands and feet are bound. >> do it now. do it now. >> act like you got some sense. >> arriving back at the jail, lambert appeared to be unconscious in the back of the police car. later, an ambulance took him back to that same hospital where he'd been approximately one hour before. lambert was pronounced dead on arrival, approximately 6:06 a.m. these videos were obtained by msnbc and were not seen until a few weeks ago. south boston police declined to comment to msnbc, but in court papers, they claim the use of
force was justified. virginia state police say they conducted an investigation, and have turned their findings over to prosecutors. keep in mind, this was two years ago. the criminal investigation of the case remains open. the incident is the subject of a civil lawsuit. msnbc's chief legal correspondent, ari melber, reported this out for the network. he joins me now. there's a civil lawsuit at issue here. let's start with this. what determination was made between the cause of death of this individual? >> great question. the coroner basically said that acute cocaine intoxication was lifted as the cause of death. they noted that taser wounds existed on the body, but according to our investigation, they didn't know the extent of the repeat tasering. >> all right. do we know what the police told officials about what had transpired during that timeline that we now have video evidence of? >> that's one of the most interesting, and according to the family, disturbing parts of this. because ambulance staff wrote down, the police told them that night, beyond everything that you just showed, at the end, where you showed the video of
lambert essentially expired or dead in the back of the car, the ambulance staff said that police told them that he was fighting them there and he had an altercation and had to pin him down. that's the kind of claim that would support more force, if it were true. from the video, we know it's not true. i have to tell you, as well, in terms of our reporting, that later-written police incident reports did accurately say that he was, essentially, unconscious in the back of the car at the arrival of the jail. so either the ambulance staff deeply misunderstood what the police said or their story changed. either way, misinformation of that nature in the hospital records and in what ambulance staff thought happened, as they tried to resuscitate or help this man is important. >> my understanding is, across all the videos that have been obtained, there's an account of about 20 distinct incidents in which the taser is fired. what kind of guidelines are there for the use of tasering, that is compliant with
essentially non-excessive uses? >> well, that's a question, of course, that local rules and the department of justice have spoken to. and essentially, let's take a step back. one tasing, done correctly, puts 50,000 volts through the human body. and by using basically two darts, it turns the human body into an electricity conductor. you are not supposed to do more than one or two tasings. indeed, the justice department and their guidelines notes that over three tasings can be associated with serious injury or death. 20 tazings is way off the charts of what is allowed. now, we don't know whether all 20 hit this suspect, because you can have one where you attempt and it doesn't go. but we know that one officer, officer bratton there, did 15 tasings that night, 10 within the span of a few minutes. >> the family, my understanding, or at least part of the family, is behind the civil suit that is working its way through the courts. how do they feel about this video now? >> i got to tell you, when i went down to virginia and spoke
with the family initially when researching this story, it was just weeks after they'd seen the video for the first time. so for over two years, as you emphasized, chris, there wasn't a lot known. the case was opened criminally and they then finally did this si civil case, which is the only reason they got the tapes under court order. they told me it was heartbreaking, worse than even the initial situation when they saw what they saw in that video. the father told me today on msnbc that he considers this torture, his words, because he believes they were trying to inflict pain on his son. so the family has been through a real difficult period. i will mention to you, as identify mentioned elsewhere in reporting this, that the police said this was justified use of force, because they say lambert posed a danger. >> all right, ari melber, thank you very much. thank you for reporting, appreciate it. still to come, the moment from last night's debate i can't stop watching. seriously, it just doesn't get old. i will play it for you, ahead. can a business have a mind?
donald trump, who's always said he'd have a great relationship with putin, surprised us when he said the two had actually met. >> if putin wants to go in, and i got to know him very well, because we were both on "60 minutes." we were stable mates and we did very well that night. but, you know, that. >> that's certainly surprising, considering "60 minutes" is not a live shot, where the interview subjects sit in the green room together waiting for their turn. in fact, putin was interviewed charily rhodes in moscow. while donald trump was interviewed by scott pelley in their new york city penthouse. no one seemed to notice or care about the impossibility of that meeting, though carly fiorina did hit trump with a witty rejoinder. >> one of the reasons aye said i would not be talking to vladimir putin right now, although i have met him as well, not in a green room for a show, but in a private meeting. >> laugh, chuckle, appreciative applause. that line apparently scored her some debate points, but it might
have been better burned if trump had ever met trump in a green room, and if fiorina hasn't publicly stated in the past that she did, in fact, meet putin in a green room. >> where did you meet him? >> i met him in beijing. we were in sort of a green room setting, actually. two of us were giving a speech. each of us were giving a speech at a major economic conference, at aipac. >> we'll talk about this and some of the other nonsensical moments when we come back. don't go away.
it's the little things in life that make me smile. spending the day with my niece. i don't use super poligrip for hold, because my dentures fit well. before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. even well fitting dentures let in food particles. just a few dabs of super poligrip free is clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. so it's not about keeping my dentures in, it's about keeping the food particles out. try super poligrip free.
relatively speaking, there were a lot of substantiative exchanges in last night's debate. so the candidates showing pretty clearly where they differ on issues like immigration, defense spending. there were also a lot of moments that might have made you scratch your head or perhaps chuck your coors light at the tv. for my money, the most bewildering, jaw-dropping of all those moments is when ben carson was asked how he would approach the situation in syria.
we present it to you now in full. >> well, putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there, because they -- that's why they're called special ops. they're actually able to guide some of the other things that we're doing there. and what we have to recognize is that putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the middle east. this is going to be his base. and we have to oppose him there in an effective way. we also must recognize that it's a very complex place. you know, the chinese are there, as well as the russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. what we've been doing so far is very ineffective. but we can't give up ground right there. but we have to look at this on a much more global scale. we're talking about global jihadists and their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. so we have to be saying, how do
we make them look like losers, because that's the way that they're able to gather a lot of influence. and i think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. and you look for the easiest place to do that, it would be in iraq. and if outside of anbar in iraq, there's a big energy field. take that from them. take all of that land from them. we could do that, i believe, fairly easily, i've learned, from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there. but you have to continue to face them, because our goal is not to contain them, but to destroy them before they destroy us. >> you got all that? when we come back, we will try to make some sense of whatever that was and tackle a few of the other lowlights from last night's debate.
at planters we know how to throw a remarkable holiday party. just serve classy snacks and be a gracious host, no matter who shows up. [cricket sound] richard. didn't think you were going to make it. hey sorry about last weekend, i don't know what got into me. well forgive and forget... kind of. i don't think so! do you like nuts?
plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. insurance coverage has expanded nationally and you may now be covered. contact your health plan for the latest information. we heard you got a job as a developer!!!!! its official, i work for ge!! what? wow... yeah! okay... guys, i'll be writing a new language for machines so planes, trains, even hospitals can work better.
oh! sorry, i was trying to put it away... got it on the cake. so you're going to work on a train? not on a train...on "trains"! you're not gonna develop stuff anymore? no i am... do you know what ge is? joining me now to talk about the lowlights of last night's debate, sabrina siddiqui, my friend, sam seder, host of majority report. before we get to the now-infamous welders versus philosophers debate, which was brought up by marco rubio, that carson answer to me typified so much about the ben carson phenomenon. look, whatever your belief system is, and clearly you were an amazing doctor, but that is nonsense. that's just -- that was nonsense. and no one on stage called it nonsense. everyone just seems to sort of be like, okay, now moving on. >> which is interesting, because when donald trump has had similar moments, you've seen marco rubio and other candidates challenge him and say, we need to have a commander in chief who
is ready on day one to face these threats. i think they recognize that ben carson has this mystifying popularity. no matter what he says, for example, the chinese are in s syr syria, which is categorically untrue, there is no nuance to that statement, it doesn't seem to cost him, at least at this point. >> well, because his support is faith-based. which is also why they don't go after him, because they know on that level, it doesn't matter. >> but let's also be clear. they think he's going away. >> and we also have to remember that someone with a similar sense of foreign policy was actually chosen as a vice presidential candidate eight years ago now, right? >> right. >> we forget, but that was eight years ago. and if you follow natural progression, the idea that you could have a leading candidate who's just as -- >> right. >> -- not really that shocked. >> so now the rubio moment, which is a moment he's been doing on his stump speech for
months. welder versus philosophers. take a look. >> make higher education faster and easier to access. especially vocational training. for the life of me, i don't know why we have stigmatized vocational education. welders make more money than philosoph philosophers. >> so there's a fact check here, which almost seems like a lame fact check, because it seems like he's sort of making a joke. but the fact check. mid-career median salary, $81,000 versus $40,000. what is this line about when he does it on the stump speech. >> he says he wants to be known as the vocational education president. he has a big push to invest in, you know, creating more mechanics, more technicians, more people who work with their hands. and that's something actually the president's job council, which no longer exists, had also supported, and he kind of makes this joke. and i think he's really good at kind of injecting in these debates, sound bites from his stump speech, that work really well and play really well, even if they might not be the most accurate in this case.
but while he plays it differently, he says the job market has really shrunk over the years for philosophers, so he's talking more about, where would you most likely get a job when you graduate from school? he thinks there are too many people who are pursuing disagrees which are unlikely in this job market to be competitive. >> i think this works two i whats for him. one, it harkens back to a time when manufacturing was popular in this country. it sends conservatives back to those good old days. and it's also like a nod to the -- i don't know if it's the reformacons, but the libertarians who feel like maybe the problem is, too many people are going to college. >> right. >> and of course you also hit the anti-intellectual -- >> uh be thinking we should have more vocational training -- that's a bipartisan consensus thing you hear at davos. it's not some brave stance -- >> i don't know who -- >> exactly. it's not some brave stand that marco rubio -- anyway. this was the weirdest line of the night for me. and i'm excited to share it with you, because i think no one else noticed.
this is john kasich doing a tour of his middle east policy. listen carefully. >> in syria, yes, a no-fly zone north on the turkish border, a no-fly zone south on the jordanian border. anybody who flies in the fist time, maybe they can fly out. they fly in a second time, they will not fly out. saudi arabia, cut off funding for the radical clerics. the one that preach against us, but are fundamentally our friends. jordan, we want the king to reign for a thousand years. egypt, they've been our ally and a moderating force in the middle east throughout their history. >> okay, so it's just -- there's a bunch of stuff sandwiching it, but jordan, we want the king to reign for a thousand years. >> this is kasich -- >> what?! >> i think this is part of like kasich, i think -- it's a very difficult time for him. because he's looking around, he's going, how is this possibly happening? and i think that, you know, what he's trying to show there that he's so knowledgeable about
this -- >> like, i walk into a diner and i don't ask for two eggs over easy. i ask for whiskey and two butterups. he's trying to show, he's so glib and comfortable with this. and he's dealing with people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. but sadly for him, that's the wrong thing to present at a republican party debate. >> he affected at this debate this sort of -- the famous playing, the rolling his eyes, i can't believe i'm losing to this guy. that's john kasich's shtick at the debate. >> and coming out of this debate, most people who are watching from the other side are thinking, how are they not nominating this guy, he's up there making this forceful case on immigration reform, trying to paint a contrast on the executive actions, and what the implications will be of deporting all these people, in his previous debate, he defended his medicaid expansion, but like steve said, this is the wrong crowd. >> let me tell you something. message, if any of you are watching, you don't want to be liberal favorite republican debate contestants.
>> based on his actions, it was like they needed a trigger warning. >> sabrina siddiqui, and sam seder, thank you both. before we go, programming note. be sure to tune into comedy central later tonight. i'll be a guest on thedale show with trevor noah. a lot of fun. that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> i heard that went great. did that in fact go great? >> a lot of it's fun. you make a joke, some people laugh, when we're not in our weird, hermetically sealed studio. when you say to the camera, it's just like -- >> that's why i keep the nodding bobblehead next to me, just off-camera throughout my entire show. thank you, chris. congratulations on that. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. okay, so, it's happening again. we are having another one of those momentums when most people in the country think we're all having the same conversation about what's going on in politics. sort of feels like everybody's in on the conversation, we have a stimulated set of facts, we all have a general set of impressions about what's going on. the